Ted Grant

Britain: director shows the real face of capitalism

Part 1

The
capitalist class are beginning to step up their pressure on the
Labour government, scheming and preparing its downfall. Before doing
so they are using the popular press to smear and discredit it. In
their own journals, read by “Top People” they are launching the
offensive more and more openly. The Times of May 27th
in an editorial headed Ebbing confidence pontificates:

“Private industry, including finance and commerce generally, is
beginning to lose faith in the government’s promises, even
assurances, to give enterprise its head. Some parts of the private
sector have already shown their impatience. The City has been restive
since last November. The governor of the Bank of England voiced his
feelings some months ago. More recently the clearing banks spoke out.
So did the building societies. Last weekend Mr George Brown had a
‘misunderstanding’ with the Institute of Directors…”

They
conclude:

“Concessions on the Finance Bill (in relation to Corporation Tax
and Capital Gains Tax) could be the beginning of a positive
government move to work with business and not against it.”

In
a smooth and polished way the Times
expresses what is said crudely and brutally by the managing directors
of the monopolies and big business. But the real purpose is the same.
What the ruling class is thinking is best expressed in the speech of
the chairman of the board of directors of the Rugby Portland Cement
monopoly in his annual report which is proudly and brazenly
advertised in the Financial
Times and the Times
of May 17th.
Here is the naked expression of the real motives of the capitalist
class in relation to the economy and their attitude towards the
working class and the labour movement.

If
the leaders of the labour and trade union movement had one tenth the
loyalty in representing the interests of the workers as these
gentlemen in representing those of their class they would circulate
this report in millions of copies, with appropriate comments. Here we
can only reprint some of the choicest bits with corresponding
analysis. It is to be hoped that readers of the Militant
will give them the widest circulation in the labour movement.

Profits up

Sir
Halford Reddish starts with the declaration of a 25 percent increase
in profits in 1964. This was the nineteenth
successive year of record profits—“the largest increase we have
so far realized”—and Sir Halford is looking happily forward to a
still further increase in 1965.

But
alas the trials and tribulations of the stock exchange shareholders
are always there. Hidden reserves have had to be brought into the
open due to the “stupidity” of the workers in throwing out the
Tories.

“In
the peculiar circumstances existing this year with the pending
introduction of a Capital Gains Tax it was felt to be in the
interests of the shareholders…a review…had shown that in the
opinion of the Board book values understated
current values by not less than £12 million.”

How
much sweat and toil of the workers in the industry contributed to
that “under-valuation”! The threat, however mild, of having to
disgorge some of these gains forced them to reveal these assets.

Capitalism
summed up

The
speech could sum up the real economic, political, and philosophical
conceptions of the ruling class. Marx wrote wittily that the
capitalists in their lust for profits would like to drive the workers
and the machinery 25 hours a day if they could. A hundred years later
Sir Halford repeats seriously what Marx wrote as caricature. “Our
plants, are operating continuously and we cannot get more than 24
hours out of the day nor more than seven days out of the week!”
This in relation to the problem of increased productivity which he
declares is “mainly a matter of management—the
most economic deployment of capital and labour.”

Sir
Halford and his directors regard the working class as nothing more
than a source for the production of their profits, part of the
machinery of production. In this, with a certain satisfaction for
himself and the shareholders, he says “our production per man hour
has been increased in the last 10 years by 22.5 percent”. That is
nearly a quarter increase! One can be sure that the wages of the
workers did not rise to that extent, or that the price of cement fell
correspondingly. On the contrary with a sellers’ market due to the
economic upswing since the war, and the demand for factory and office
building and houses, both at home and abroad, with a virtual monopoly
the price of cement has been maintained artificially high.

Production
for profit

The
capitalists produce goods for profit and not for any other reason.
Sir Halford explains,

“We
have abundant confidence in a continued growth in the demand for
cement, and are therefore working on plans for a substantial
expansion of our productive capacity in the UK…I emphasize that
there is no element of expansion for the sake of expansion in these
plans. We shall not go ahead with any of them until we can feel
assured that they will be economic propositions. This
almost certainly will involve some increase in the selling-price of
cement in view of the
present-day cost of plant and the rise in other costs outside our
control.”

No
crocodile tears here about the burning need of people to be
re-housed, the lower paid workers condemned to live in terrible
conditions in the slums, the painful dilemma and unhappiness of
newly-married young couples, at what should be one of the happiest
periods in their lives, compelled to live with their in-laws under
crowded conditions, suited almost perfectly to produce the maximum
friction and conflict. The purpose of producing cement is not for
housing but for profit. Business is business!

Sir
Halford and his directors were looking forward to some happy years.
“But the ultimate result of our efforts in 1965 is
at present clouded, indeed dominated, by
the uncertainties created by the present UK government.” “I said
last year that the election of a Labour government embracing
Socialism would be a disaster for our country, and so it has proved.”
Magnanimously he declares: “I am not one of those who say that the
businessmen should withhold all co-operation from a socialist
government…” On the contrary he declares that from sheer kindness
of heart they should “help them not to do too many things which
will damage the nation’s economy.” Unfortunately at this stage,
big sections of the labour movement have the illusion that the
government can “regulate” the economy by “directives” to
business. This has been evidenced in the recent union conferences.
The Cabinet and the leaders of the TUC have systematically
disseminated this illusion. Sir Halford in his naive way puts his
boot on this proposition. Production is for profit and not for some
cloudy ideals.

He
confirms the arguments of the Marxists when they crucified the
so-called “class-less” conception of society put forward by such
right-wingers as Crosland, Jay and Roy Jenkins. How fantastic appears
the attitude of Callaghan the “socialist” Chancellor who declared
he was the Chancellor of “all” the people, not one class, of
Brown when he called for collaboration with the employers, of Wilson
with his wining and dining and hobnobbing with the representatives of
the biggest section of big business. Big business will collaborate
only on their terms and in their interests, which are fundamentally
opposed to those of the working class and the people generally.

All
the cringing and fawning on big business will do no good. What counts
with them is £.s.d. [Note: abbreviation for “pounds, shillings and
pence”]. In the peculiar capitalist idea of economics Sir Halford
waxes lyrical about the importance of “confidence” “between
individuals, as between collections of individuals, as between
nations.” What Sir Halford means is the need to bow to the
interests of Mammon, nationally and internationally, otherwise they
will not “co-operate” whether as bankers, merchants or
industrialists.

This
is made clear in the next section of the report where Sir Halford
raves against the modest provisions of the Corporation and Capital
Gains Tax.

“If
the Finance Bill reaches the Statute Book in anything like its
present form it will have a disastrous effect on the national
economy.”

Sir
Halford then expresses from a capitalist point of view the fact that
the profits of the capitalist, (the surplus value extracted from the
labour of the working class) is the source for further investment.
All this, of course, not for the sordid motive of profits but in the
interests of the nation! “The attack on profits [these should be
sacred—EG] which is increasingly severe, overlooks the fact that
the profit of today [in effect the surplus of production over
consumption] is the only source of the much-needed capital of
tomorrow.” Even the modest Capital Gains Tax—a tax not much
different to a tax which has existed in “free enterprise” America
for more than a generation—comes in for the strongest condemnation.

Let workers
sacrifice!

But,
of course, it is only of the “nation”…in reality the ruling
class, of whom Sir Halford is thinking. In his crude way Sir Halford
reflects the idea of Marxism that the source of the profits of the
capitalists is the unpaid labour of the working class. Trotsky once
expressed this idea graphically when he said that the class struggle
was the struggle over the share of the workers in the surplus value
and surplus products that they produced. Sir Halford and his class
want to limit the share of the workers, so that their share can be
increased. The wealth of the country has been produced by the labour
of the working class for generations. It now amounts to the colossal
figure of £100,000 million. Sir Halford is interested in increasing
the “capital” of the country only because this means an enormous
increase in the privileges, power and income of the ruling class.

For
them the State exists to protect and increase this power. Despite the
fabulous increase in the wealth of the ruling class, they want the
burdens of “consumption” restriction to be borne by the class who
produce the wealth. They have reacted violently even to the modest
increase in taxes suggested by the tax on capital gains. Sir Halford
expresses their point of view:

“In several directions the present proposals amount to a steady
confiscation of capital. Theft is still theft even if ‘authorised’
by man-made laws.”

How
then would Sir Halford and his class respond to a really radical
attack on their vested interests? If there is any theft involved it
is the theft by the capitalists of the surplus produced by the
workers by productive work.

Part 2

While
demanding that the consumption of the workers be reduced, naturally
Sir Halford, in common with his class is screaming piteously against
the attempt to limit the racket on business expenses. “Yet another
burden to be borne by the shareholder is the proposed disallowance
for tax purposes of ‘entertainment’ expenses.” With hand on
heart Sir Halford virtuously declaims, “I know nothing about the
grouse moors, the yachts and the penthouses airily mentioned by the
Chancellor, I can speak only for our own company. We have always
refused to buy business.” Sir Halford can speak this way, as his
firm controls a virtual monopoly; naturally they are not in the
position of having to “buy business”. But nevertheless,

“Of
course it depends on what is meant by entertainment. I confess that I
try to extend the working day, particularly in London, by a business
discussion over lunch or dinner (as the Prime Minister himself does)
and often over breakfast as well. Quite recently I had visitors to
breakfast on three consecutive mornings…On each occasion I paid
(that is, in due course the company paid) a few shillings for the
other man’s breakfast. Is that ‘entertainment’?”

Directors’
canteens

Sir
Halford can sleep easy. His friends, just as they employ people to
find ways for tax dodging, have already found a way round this
restriction. The Financial
Times cynically
reports the appearance of “directors’ canteens” where the cost
of a meal is anything up to £10 a head. The wages of good chefs in
the West End have soared and company directors are making inquiries
in Switzerland, France and Germany for top chefs because of the
resulting shortage! All this on business expenses of course! A far
cry from the miserable meals served in the workers’ canteens. If
there is to be any limitation on “consumption” it certainly will
not be on the part of Sir Halford and his class.

Sir
Halford complains, as do consistently all the capitalists at the
“excessive government expenditure”:

“High
prices are not the cause of inflation; they are the natural effects
as the inexorable law of supply and demand comes into play. If the
bath is overflowing it is not much good baling out with the
soap-dish. The thing to do is to turn off the tap. And the tap in
this case is excessive government expenditure.”

Naturally
the high price of cement is a law of nature! It has nothing to do
with the monopoly, which has been established by concentration and
amalgamation in the industry. What Sir Halford wants is a slashing of
expenditure on the social services, education, house building and
such “luxuries”. Naturally his class would not want a cut in the
arms estimates, which are intended to defend the loot at home and
abroad. One has only to remember the howl that went up when it was
suggested there should be a cut in the expenditure on aircraft
production. Arms production is expensive but highly profitable!

What
Sir Halford means is indicated by his contemptuous references to the
electorate:

“…it is
difficult to imagine any government, whatever its political colour,
and much less a Socialist government, resisting the temptation to
bribe what is so largely an uninformed electorate, as long as there
is universal suffrage.”

The
reference to universal suffrage has sinister connotations. So
long as the capitalist economy is in the process of capitalist
upswing, and so long as the electorate continues to vote
Conservative, with
only occasional regrettable lapses in voting Labour, and so long as
the Labour leaders do not launch really radical measures against
capitalism, the capitalists are prepared to tolerate the continuance
of democratic institutions. While they are making record profits they
are prepared to tolerate this inconvenience. But as the impatience of
Sir Halford indicates, despite this, any attempt to take serious
measures against capitalism would provoke their implacable
resistance. Like the German, French, Italian and Spanish capitalists
before the war, they would turn to other means to maintain their
domination. In Britain too, before the war big sections were
preparing to back Mosley.

Representatives
of the capitalists like the opposition leader and “civilised
gentlemen” like Home and Enoch Powell, not to speak of Sir Cyril
Osborne, can use in however surreptitious a fashion racial prejudice,
in their attitude to immigration, for the purpose of gaining support
and misleading the working class even at the present time. What base
and dirty methods of repression would this class stoop to if they
felt their position really threatened? If they react in this way to
not a diminution but a limitation of their profits one can imagine
the rage and the hysteria with which they would greet any real threat
to the sources of their wealth and income.

Incomes
policy

So far as the ruling class is concerned the incomes and prices policy of
the government is already dead. The Financial
Times cynically
explained the real purpose of the policy as the restraining and
limiting of the increase in wages of the workers. With full
employment the workers had a sellers’ market for their labour and
only by such means could the rise in wages be restrained. The
capitalists, as already explained, were not interested in either
limiting their profits or incomes. Thus the crime of the Labour
government not only lies in trying to check the super-profits being
made by the capitalists but being unable to restrain sufficiently the
attempts of the workers to gain increases to match the increases in
the cost of living and a small increase in their share of the wealth
they are producing. As Sir Halford explains,

“The much
publicised incomes policy is in my view an unrealistic conception and
in any case has been shot to pieces by the large wage increases
granted during the last six months. Our so-called full employment
really conceals much under-employment, with far too many cases of two
or three men doing work which could and should be done by one man. A
little more work all round and less talk of leisure and our export
problem would soon be solved.”

Sack
three million

There
speaks the brutal voice of capitalist reaction. Sack three million
workers at least, and discipline the rest with fear of the sack.
Speed up the intensity of the work and lengthen the hours, then “we”
i.e. the owners of industry, would be able to compete with our
rivals, and of course, increase our share of the swag. There’s only
one trouble with this pleasant solution to the problems of the
capitalists…the working class in Britain would not stand for it!
Every time there has been an attempt at mass dismissals, the workers
have demanded alternative work for their mates, brothers and fathers,
or have responded with determined strike action. Not yet with their
backs to the wall the employers have seen that at this stage it would
cost them more than it was worth in mass strikes and social unrest.
But what they really think is blurted out in this unadorned
statement.

Sir
Halford does find words of praise for one Labour minister. No trade
unionist would be given a prize for guessing his name.

“I
applaud the present Minister of Labour for his courageous call for
more discipline in industry and for ‘an honest day’s work for an
honest day’s pay’, for his outright condemnation of ‘unofficial’
strikes and flagrant breaches of contract. Without sanctity of
contract, the honouring of agreements freely negotiated, the whole
fabric of our civilisation must sooner or later fall apart.”

“Bed of nails”

Words
of praise from this enemy of the labour movement are sufficient
condemnation of the role which has been played by Gunter, since he
became Minister of Labour. Gunter intends the working class to be
pushed onto his “bed of nails.”

The
government staggers on from one expedient to another. All the forces
of capitalism are exerting pressure upon it. Their senior partner in
the “Alliance”, American imperialism, joins with the ruling class
in demanding cuts in “consumption” and “government
expenditure”. But together with the ruling class they implacably
reject any question of a reduction in defence spending. The bowl that
went up over the modest increase in taxes represented by the Finance
Bill shows where they consider the taxes must be directed. They are
not satisfied with Wilson’s boast that consumption had been cut by
£500 million through the taxes on beer, cigarettes and income tax
introduced by the Budget. They demand further attacks on working
class standards.

What
remains of the practical realistic programme of working hand in hand
with big business? It is not the hand that big business wants but to
grab Labour by the throat.

Thus
the measures of the Labour government cannot satisfy the working
class, nor placate their enemies. How could it be otherwise? With 20
percent of the economy only under state ownership, it is the more
productive and profitable 80 percent of industry that calls the tune.
This is the insolent taunt of the Institute of Directors, in their
campaign against the Labour government. Sir Halford Reddish has
spoken for his class.

End
compromise

The
workers in the labour movement will have a different reaction. The
Incomes Policy must be ended. Let there be real and drastic measures
against the 400 monopolies, the private banks, insurance companies
and the landowners. If anybody’s income is to be limited let it be
theirs!

Take
the economy from out of the hands of this parasitic clique by
nationalising this vital section of the economy! Let the Labour
leaders cease cringing before the Halfords of this country and
abroad. Let them mobilise and rely on the power of the working class
in the labour movement and in industry and the situation would soon
be transformed. Plan industry under the democratic control and
management of the trade union movement and the shop stewards.

Attempting
to compromise with the capitalist class only ends in compromising the
labour movement. It demoralises the workers and throws the
politically backward layers of the workers and the middle class into
the hands of the Tories. Big business is moaning about “socialism”.
Give them a real taste of socialist measures, so that they can have
something genuine to moan about!